Machiavellian vs Zen voting

You would think it would be a simple thing deciding who to vote for: just find the party whose principles resonate most with you, or whose past performance has impressed you the most, and vote for them.  Easy, isn't it?

Well, no.  Both Likud and Machaneh Tzioni are arguing that you should vote for them, rather than their smaller natural allies, to ensure that they are the largest party in the knesset, and will therefore be given the opportunity to form the coalition.

Fortunately that canard is easy to debunk, as I have done before, but despite the incontrovertible evidence provided by real life experience as recent as Kadima's 28-27 "victory" over Likud in 2009, the media persists in maintaining this false narrative, so many people swallow it because of the Availability Cascade cognitive bias (i.e. the more you repeat a given statement, the more people tend to believe it is true).

But now I have another dilemma.  I fundamentally disagree with Eli Yishai's economic and social platform, and I find Baruch Marzel a little too extreme even for my tastes.  But I would prefer for these two fellas to be in the Knesset rather than a couple of extra left-wingers.  And here's the rub: according to the last polls released before the 7-day blackout on surveys before election day, Yachad is hovering on the edge of the electoral threshold.  If they make it over the required 3.25%, they will have at least 4 seats.  If they don't, those 4 seats will be divvied up proportionately among those who did make it.  Which means, assuming a roughly 50-50 split, that 2 of their seats will go to people I strongly disapprove of.

Under normal considerations, my single vote cannot be more than the tipping point for one Knesset seat to change hands (or bottoms).  In this case, however, my vote could constitute the tipping point for 4 whole seats!  So maybe I should refrain from voting for my first-choice party, and rather vote for a party that would otherwise be my fourth or fifth choice, just to help them get into the Knesset and strengthen the overall "right wing" bloc?  The argument is not without merit, even if it's not compelling.

But then... there's the law of unintended consequences.  For example, not so long ago everyone was calling for Bashar al-Assad to be deposed in Syria.  Now all of a sardine, everyone's gone quiet on that score.  What happened?   Islamic State, of course.  Who ever thought there could arise and even more vicious, cruel and despotic regime than Assad's?  Yet if he had fallen when the hounds were out for his blood, all the indications are that IS would have taken full control of Syria, as they have in Iraq where the West deposed another cruel and bloody dictator, and we would have had the richest, best equipped, most full-tilt nut-job Islamist terrorist organization in the world massing on our border.  Good thing we didn't get what we wanted, huh?

Similarly I could make the case that, Netanyahu's capacity for Churchillian oratory notwithstanding, perhaps the best thing for Israel is for him to lose power now, and Herzog to become prime minister?   Bear with me on this.  It's not too difficult to conjure up a scenario where Netanyahu would do a Sharon, and make a suicidal deal with the Palestinians.  So half the Likud would revolt -  big deal!  He would be able to pass the deal with the support of the Left and the Arab parties.  Herzog, on the other hand, has no such leeway, because as PM he would be battling everyone to the right of him, plus he would have a few security hawks in his own coalition who would need some serious persuasion.

Also, Netanyahu is right now the unchallenged leader of the Right.  He's unchallenged, because nobody can challenge him.  What, try depose a charismatic and powerful sitting prime minister from your own camp, who is received with wave after wave of standing ovations in Congress?  Obama didn't ever get that kind of reception, even when the Dems controlled Congress.  Moshe Feiglin challenged Netanyahu, and look how that worked out for him.

But if he were to lose, it would open up the playing field to other leadership contenders.  Herzog would maybe be able to hold together a coalition for two years, at the outside, and then we'll be back to new elections.  This would allow a new rising star to take over the leadership of the Right, perhaps someone more ideologically driven, with a fresh perspective and new momentum.  Like Feiglin, or Naftali Bennett, or who knows who else?  Maybe even Tzipi Hotovely?  It might be worth a couple years of watching Herzog trying to keep his government together, once the hate-Bibi glue has expired, and now all the conflicting demands of his coalition partners start playing off against each other.  Heck, the entertainment value of that might even be the payoff by itself!

I'm not trying to predict the future here or advocate a contrarian voting position; that's not the point.  All I'm saying is, there are so many different ways that things can play out, and trying to go Machiavellian on it is not guaranteed, or even highly probable, to lead to a better outcome; in fact, it could backfire seriously.

So I've made my decision: I will be a Zen voter, and simply vote for the party I feel best represents my views, and let the chips fall where they may.  And I respectfully submit that you should do the same.